Iraq

[Laudate_Dominum]

This is just a dumb hypothetical question and not something I believe should happen or anything like that, I'm just curious.

What do you think would happen if instead of trying to build a new stable government in Iraq we were to just bail out and maybe facilitate the annexation of Iraq's territory to the neighboring countries? Maybe something like this:

10% (West) to Jordan
15% (NW) to Syria
15% (North) to Turkey
35% (East) to Iran
25% (South) to Saudi Arabia

Just a random thought - I'm not saying it is a good plan since my opinion is that it was cause massive problems and could destabilize the Middle East but I thought it was interesting to think about anyway.

What do you peeps think would happen? Oh, and maybe some of the territory could be annexed but the heart of Iraq (including Baghdad) would remain independent but it would be easier to manage since Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, et cetera would be worrying about their slice. Maybe give some territory, such as Al Bashra, to Kuwait too.

Btw, I realize this is probably the stupidest and worst scenario possible but I just want to know what people think would happen.

[CatherineM]

I don't think trying to come up with ideas out of an impossible situation is ever stupid. I was thinking today about how the partition of India/Pakistan went about. I believe that no matter how long we stay, it will be chaos when we leave. Maybe partitioning Iraq along ethnic lines would work. The Shiites and the Sunies have been fighting since Mohammad died. Maybe we just need to separate them. It would involve giving the Kurds a piece of land, and I'm pretty sure Turkey would freak.

[Altari]

I don't think we have the duty, obligation or right to do anything further with Iraq, especially not sell it off to neighboring countries. If we were to do that, it would open a whole new can of worms in regards to the world hating us.

Anyway, the other problem is that divvying up more land (whether ethnically, geographically or politically) would create a massive amount of instability as one country insisted they didn't receive enough territory and attempted a hostile take over of another. Remember Alexander and his generals...

[Justin86]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1517540' date='May 4 2008, 09:37 AM']10% (West) to Jordan
15% (NW) to Syria
15% (North) to Turkey
35% (East) to Iran
25% (South) to Saudi Arabia[/quote]
Giving the Shia Iran the biggest portion of a Sunni country might be a bad idea. I think we're all educated enough on the subject these days to get my point, but I'll go into it if someone insists.

[Justin86]

Ok, so I just remembered that Iraq is mostly Shia, and they only had a Sunni government at the time of Hussein.

Laugh it up everyone. You have been HANNITIZED.

Edited May 4, 2008 by Justin86

[Justin86]

[quote name='Altari' post='1517707' date='May 4 2008, 11:37 AM']I don't think we have the duty, obligation or right to do anything further with Iraq, especially not sell it off to neighboring countries. If we were to do that, it would open a whole new can of worms in regards to the world hating us.

Anyway, the other problem is that divvying up more land (whether ethnically, geographically or politically) would create a massive amount of instability as one country insisted they didn't receive enough territory and attempted a hostile take over of another. Remember Alexander and his generals...[/quote]
I honestly think, that as crappy our situation in Iraq is, it would only get more unstable if we pulled out. I think even the Democrats understand this, which is why even they only pander to the surrender movement and aren't seriously going to withdraw our troops. Actually, the only politician that doesn't seem to get it is Ron Paul, who apparently thinks we can somehow stay out of the Middle East all together in the nuclear age without being affected.

[Altari]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1518052' date='May 4 2008, 07:20 AM']I honestly think, that as crappy our situation in Iraq is, it would only get more unstable if we pulled out.[/quote]
Did I say we should pull out (seriously, did I?)? That wasn't my intention.

[quote]Actually, the only politician that doesn't seem to get it is Ron Paul, who apparently thinks we can somehow stay out of the Middle East all together in the nuclear age without being affected.[/quote]
Ron Paul supports military isolationism, a policy that would have served our country well, and still can, if done correctly. I have never heard him suggest an immediate withdrawal, but a withdrawal on a timetable that is realistic for our troops' safety.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[url="http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/iraq/"]http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/iraq/[/url]
[url="http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/national-defense/"]http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/national-defense/[/url]

[Aching]

Isolationism...ick. I think that's a terrible idea, in any way, shape, or form. We have to stay involved in the world's arena...to not would be just bad all around...

I agree with Justin; I don't think we could seriously pull out now. Iraq is still so vulnerable and fragile right now.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aching' post='1518601' date='May 4 2008, 05:40 PM']Isolationism...ick. I think that's a terrible idea, in any way, shape, or form. We have to stay involved in the world's arena...to not would be just bad all around...

I agree with Justin; I don't think we could seriously pull out now. Iraq is still so vulnerable and fragile right now.[/quote]
Ron Paul would deny that he is an isolationist. He is against imperialism (700 military bases in 130 countries, et cetera) but he is all about trade and diplomacy. Wanting to return our foreign policy to that which is consistent with the pricinples of this country is hardly isolationism.

[abercius24]

I think splitting Iraq into 3 separate, independant countries would be more successful. The problem is civil war between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Neither group has the capacity to trust the other, let alone work with each other. Their mistrust is so deep that they are willing to kill to keep the other from gaining too much power. If we worked as hard at stablizing each ethnic/religious region into its own sovereign nation as we have trying to make all 3 regions into one, we would probably have been ready to pull out by now. It's not too late, in my opinion. The current policy is failing because it is based on changing people's biases and prejudices. The hardest thing to do is to change a people's collective mindset. Good politics has always been based on working within people's biases and prejudices. What better way to do that in Iraq than to help them isolate themselves into separate nations.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1518738' date='May 4 2008, 06:52 PM']I think splitting Iraq into 3 separate, independant countries would be more successful. The problem is civil war between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Neither group has the capacity to trust the other, let alone work with each other. Their mistrust is so deep that they are willing to kill to keep the other from gaining too much power. If we worked as hard at stablizing each ethnic/religious region into its own sovereign nation as we have trying to make all 3 regions into one, we would probably have been ready to pull out by now. It's not too late, in my opinion. The current policy is failing because it is based on changing people's biases and prejudices. The hardest thing to do is to change a people's collective mindset. Good politics has always been based on working within people's biases and prejudices. What better way to do that in Iraq than to help them isolate themselves into separate nations.[/quote]
That's interesting. I wonder if the current agenda is about installing a government that we would like and would be able to control. I'm sure the situation is way more complicated and volatile than I can know but it seems like we should be helping the people of Iraq do what they want and not impose what we think they should have. If the Kurds want sovereignty as do the Shiites and Sunnis maybe we ought to help where we can but with the intention of getting out of their way as soon as possible and not this McCain stuff about occupying Iraq for the next 100 years. My suspicion is that the main concern is control over Iraq’s oil assets and the second concern is probably keeping anti-American groups from establishing a power base in Iraq. The catch 22 is that history shows that occupying a country fuels more resentment et cetera so a perpetual military presence may never bring about the desired goal. I saw a video one time of Osama Bid Laden and he was explaining why they [the Al-Qaeda] want to attack the U.S. and the main reason he gave was our occupations and military operations in the Middle East in recent decades. I highly doubt that continued military presence and force is really going to stop terrorism in the long run. It is such a tragic and difficult situation… The real locus of the Al-Qaeda is Saudi Arabia anyway. And now we're talking about going toe-to-toe with Iran.. This freaks me out.

[kujo]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1518738' date='May 4 2008, 08:52 PM']I think splitting Iraq into 3 separate, independant countries would be more successful. The problem is civil war between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Neither group has the capacity to trust the other, let alone work with each other. Their mistrust is so deep that they are willing to kill to keep the other from gaining too much power. If we worked as hard at stablizing each ethnic/religious region into its own sovereign nation as we have trying to make all 3 regions into one, we would probably have been ready to pull out by now. It's not too late, in my opinion. The current policy is failing because it is based on changing people's biases and prejudices. The hardest thing to do is to change a people's collective mindset. Good politics has always been based on working within people's biases and prejudices. What better way to do that in Iraq than to help them isolate themselves into separate nations.[/quote]

I think that this is the best solution to the "Iraq problem." As I've said before, people in this particular region of the world feel very little, if any, nationalism, instead identifying with the different sects of Islam. This is not to say that it is impossible to have a democratic Islamic state, but it is very difficult. Perhaps a more realistic approach would be to federalize Iraq where each region is independently governed, with a central government existing to dole out oil revenues and the like. The problem is that the government they've got is a sham and has done NOTHING to facilitate any confidence or legitimacy.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1518747' date='May 4 2008, 09:04 PM']That's interesting. I wonder if the current agenda is about installing a government that we would like and would be able to control. I'm sure the situation is way more complicated and volatile than I can know but it seems like we should be helping the people of Iraq do what they want and not impose what we think they should have. If the Kurds want sovereignty as do the Shiites and Sunnis maybe we ought to help where we can but with the intention of getting out of their way as soon as possible and not this McCain stuff about occupying Iraq for the next 100 years. My suspicion is that the main concern is control over Iraq’s oil assets and the second concern is probably keeping anti-American groups from establishing a power base in Iraq. The catch 22 is that history shows that occupying a country fuels more resentment et cetera so a perpetual military presence may never bring about the desired goal. I saw a video one time of Osama Bid Laden and he was explaining why they [the Al-Qaeda] want to attack the U.S. and the main reason he gave was our occupations and military operations in the Middle East in recent decades. I highly doubt that continued military presence and force is really going to stop terrorism in the long run. It is such a tragic and difficult situation… The real locus of the Al-Qaeda is Saudi Arabia anyway. And now we're talking about going toe-to-toe with Iran.. This freaks me out.[/quote]

I think you're right here, dude. The only issue I raise is that Iran funds and arms terrorist groups all over the Middle East (i.e.- Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, etc.). Furthermore, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are living off the billions of dollars brought in by Afghanistan's booming heroin industry (90% of the world's heroin comes from this region). Maybe we should firebomb these fields like we did in Dresden and kill 2 birds with 1 stone?

[Madame Vengier]

[quote]problem is civil war between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Neither group has the capacity to trust the other, let alone work with each other. Their mistrust is so deep that they are willing to kill to keep the other from gaining too much power.[/quote]

Islam, the Religion of Peace. The hits just keep on comin'.

[Altari]

[quote name='Aching' post='1518601' date='May 4 2008, 06:40 PM']Isolationism...ick. I think that's a terrible idea, in any way, shape, or form. We have to stay involved in the world's arena...to not would be just bad all around...[/quote]
There's a difference between military isolationism and total isolationism. The first is simply keeping our troops where they need to be - in places that actually pose a threat to us. No more bases, no more foreign wars for the sake of treaties. The Founding Fathers were a couple smart cookies, and they told us early on that foreign military entanglements = ++ungood.

As far as Paul's stance...I think it's important to remember that he advocates turning the war over to the generals. We're used to Bush's policy, where he plays Commander in Chief without knowing what's really going on. Paul wants our troops home as quickly as possible, but as safely as possible, and has stated that he would leave it up to his generals to create a plan to do so. All in all, not a bad idea...

[Justin86]

[quote name='Altari' post='1518297' date='May 5 2008, 03:36 AM']Did I say we should pull out (seriously, did I?)? That wasn't my intention.[/quote]
I never said you did. I was just expanding on your reason againist it.

[quote name='Altari' post='1518810' date='May 5 2008, 11:37 AM']There's a difference between military isolationism and total isolationism. The first is simply keeping our troops where they need to be - in places that actually pose a threat to us. No more bases, no more foreign wars for the sake of treaties. The Founding Fathers were a couple smart cookies, and they told us early on that foreign military entanglements = ++ungood.

As far as Paul's stance...I think it's important to remember that he advocates turning the war over to the generals. We're used to Bush's policy, where he plays Commander in Chief without knowing what's really going on. Paul wants our troops home as quickly as possible, but as safely as possible, and has stated that he would leave it up to his generals to create a plan to do so. All in all, not a bad idea...[/quote]
Well, first of all no President plays Commander-in-Chief. He [i]is[/i] my Commander-in-Chief. Secondly, Bush is not the type of President that's into bossing around the military. He convinces our flag officers to see things his way in non-hostile meetings.

Now as far s Paul is concerned, his isolationism is very dangerous. Military isolationism served us well before the world had nukes. How exactly are we going to discourage our enemies from threatening us and our allies with their nuclear weapons when all of our troops, and nukes are in America? The policy doesn't make any sense.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1517540' date='May 3 2008, 06:37 PM']This is just a dumb hypothetical question and not something I believe should happen or anything like that, I'm just curious.

What do you think would happen if instead of trying to build a new stable government in Iraq we were to just bail out and maybe facilitate the annexation of Iraq's territory to the neighboring countries? Maybe something like this:

10% (West) to Jordan
15% (NW) to Syria
15% (North) to Turkey
35% (East) to Iran
25% (South) to Saudi Arabia

Just a random thought - I'm not saying it is a good plan since my opinion is that it was cause massive problems and could destabilize the Middle East but I thought it was interesting to think about anyway.

What do you peeps think would happen? Oh, and maybe some of the territory could be annexed but the heart of Iraq (including Baghdad) would remain independent but it would be easier to manage since Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, et cetera would be worrying about their slice. Maybe give some territory, such as Al Bashra, to Kuwait too.

Btw, I realize this is probably the stupidest and worst scenario possible but I just want to know what people think would happen.[/quote]

interesting concept. Would it work? I don't know and I'm not sure how it could be fairly pulled off, but I've been wondering about a similar idea because the other countries have fairly stable governments and leadership and breaking down the areas could take the stress off of one particular government from having to police the whole area. Maybe if some sort of border was put up on the edge of each of these areas (according to your or a similar breakdown) it may disrupt the coordination efforts of the insurgents. But instead of having one clearly incompetent (at this point and I don't see it changing any time soon) government police a whole country, we could delagate different areas to different countries who may be in a better position to handle their areas. I like it, but I don't see it happening. I don't really care about the idea of the US getting this involved in delegating lands to foreign entities, but it might be best at this point.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1518738' date='May 4 2008, 06:52 PM']I think splitting Iraq into 3 separate, independant countries would be more successful. The problem is civil war between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Neither group has the capacity to trust the other, let alone work with each other. Their mistrust is so deep that they are willing to kill to keep the other from gaining too much power. If we worked as hard at stablizing each ethnic/religious region into its own sovereign nation as we have trying to make all 3 regions into one, we would probably have been ready to pull out by now. It's not too late, in my opinion. The current policy is failing because it is based on changing people's biases and prejudices. The hardest thing to do is to change a people's collective mindset. Good politics has always been based on working within people's biases and prejudices. What better way to do that in Iraq than to help them isolate themselves into separate nations.[/quote]

I kind of like this idea too, and it might be better recieved by the parties involved. The problem I see with it at this point is how does this solve the issues of an incompetent government? Would we stay involved in setting up a government for each of the 3 new countries? Or just split em up and let me go at it? I don't know how that's a whole lot better than the current mess. But its a good idea to think about and work with.

[kujo]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1519127' date='May 5 2008, 02:54 AM']I kind of like this idea too, and it might be better recieved by the parties involved. The problem I see with it at this point is how does this solve the issues of an incompetent government? Would we stay involved in setting up a government for each of the 3 new countries? Or just split em up and let me go at it? I don't know how that's a whole lot better than the current mess. But its a good idea to think about and work with.[/quote]

I think decentralizing Iraq, breaking it up into 3 regions (or "states," if you will), with their own governing bodies who look to the federal government for things like distribution of oil revenues, national defense and public-works, would be the best idea. It would closely-resemble our own federalized system of governing...or at least the way it used to be, anyway. As for whether or not we would stick around to help create the regional governments, I think it would not be necessary. The Kurds already have a government that needs little more than tweaking, and the other groups would need to set one up as well. Sen. Joe Biden, as well as our beloved Sen. Sam Brownback, believes this to be the best and most realistic plan out there right now. I tend to believe them.

For more info, check out this op-ed from 2006 in the [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301419.html"]Washington Post.[/url]